Posts published in “Politics”

Bernie Sanders Ends His Presidential Campaign, But His Bad, Statist Policy Ideas Live On

Bernie Sanders Ends His Presidential Campaign, But His Bad, Statist Policy Ideas Live On

By John R Guardiano on April 8, 2020

Bernie Sanders officially ended his presidential campaign today. But although Sanders is a 2020 electoral loser, he is nonetheless a political winner: because his extreme, left-wing ideas have come to dominate the political dialogue and debate.

“Medicare for all,” for instance, which is just a nice-sounding name for a “single-payer,” government-controlled healthcare system, has gone mainstream and, according to many polls, now commands majority support.

“Free” college for all also ranks high now in the public’s political consciousness, as does the call to “ban new fracking.”

“It was not long ago,” Sanders said today “that people considered these ideas radical and fringe. Today they are mainstream ideas.”

Sadly, he’s right. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board observes:

For the evidence, see Joe Biden’s agenda.

Mr. Biden promises free community college, plus free four-year university for every family earning under $125,000 a year. He has resisted Medicare for All, but he wants to add a government “public option” to ObamaCare.

Even Barack Obama couldn’t get this through Congress in 2010, despite a Senate supermajority.

Mr. Biden’s proposed tax increases total $3.4 trillion over 10 years, twice what Hillary Clinton suggested in 2016. His climate plan runs to $1.7 trillion over a decade and calls for the construction of a transcontinental high-speed railway.

Don’t forget his pledge at the last debate of “no new fracking.” This is what a middle-of-the-road Democrat looks like in 2020.

Exactly. While there may well be “moderate” Democrats who don’t share Sanders “progressive” ideological zeal, the truth is that they, like Biden, are responsive to, and beholden to, Sanders’ far-left political agenda.

Even Biden admits that

Senator Sanders and his supporters have changed the dialogue in America.

Issues which had been given little attention—or little hope of ever passing—are now at the center of the political debate. Income inequality, universal health care, climate change, free college, relieving students from the crushing debt of student loans.

These are just a few of the issues Bernie and his supporters have given life to. And while Bernie and I may not agree on how we might get there, we agree on the ultimate goal for these issues and many more [emphasis added].

In other words, Biden and other “moderate” Democrats want to empower the government as much as Sanders and the “progressives” do. They just want to do so in a slower and more deliberative fashion.

The Democratic Party’s left-wing lurch, and America’s newfound flirtation with socialism, are frightening and disconcerting. But give the devil his due: At least the Sanders Democrats are brimming with ideas—bad, statist ideas, mind you, but ideas nonetheless.

The Trump Republicans, by contrast, are completely devoid of ideas.

Indeed, since taking over the GOP, the Trump Republicans have become a cult of personality devoted to “The Donald,” and policy ideas have taken a back seat.

There is, consequently, no free-market policy agenda that the GOP is pushing to replace Obamacare, reform and save entitlements, and promote more robust economic growth.

Sanders, though, offers a model for what can invigorate the Grand Old Party: a conservative insurrection candidate in 2024 brimming with outside-the-box (or at least outside the “mainstream”) policy ideas.

Like Sanders, such a candidate probably won’t win the party’s nomination; but she could shake up the party, move it to the right, and make it a more viable vehicle for much-needed political and policy reform based on federalism and entrepreneurial capitalism.

In short, Bernie was right to push for a “revolution.” The problem was he pushed for the wrong type of revolution, and our politics is suffering now as a result.

But we on the right can learn from Bernie’s example and follow his political model or playbook to right the ship of state in the years ahead. Let’s hope—and pray—that we do.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via the New York Post.

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

By John R Guardiano on March 12, 2020

Biden won big Tuesday night (March 10). Thus the pundits who wrongly insisted after Super Tuesday (March 3) that it was a two-man race between him and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders now acknowledge, belatedly, that Biden is the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee.

The Democratic primary results might also mean that Biden is the prohibitive favorite to win the White House. Consider:

First, Biden is not Hillary. He does appreciably better with working class whites, white ethnics, and black male voters than Hillary. These are voters whom Hillary under-performed with against Trump as compared to past Democratic presidential nominees.

Biden’s relative success with these voters spells real trouble for Donald Trump, especially in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which he barely won in 2016.

Biden doesn’t have to win a majority of the white working class or white ethnics. Instead, he simply has to do better with these voters than Hillary and keep Trump’s margins down.

Biden, likewise, doesn’t necessarily have to win a greater share of the black vote.

Instead, he simply has to get more black Democrats to the polls versus staying home from indifference or apathy. All indications are that, for Biden, this will be a mission easily accomplished.

Second, Democratic voters are seriously motivated to vote against Trump, whom they despise. In the March 3 Virginia Primary, for instance, a record 1.3 million voters cast ballots, and voter turnout was up by 69 percent over 2016, reports the Washington Post.

In the nine Super Tuesday states, the Post notes, voter turnout grew by an average of 33 percent, according to Edison Media Research.

These are astounding numbers; and they spell real political trouble for the President, who again, won a very narrow, fluke victory in 2016.

Trump won in part because some Democratic voters were indifferent to Hillary and thus didn’t bother to vote. In 2020, with Biden as their nominee, it appears that these formerly indifferent Democratic voters intend to turn out and make their voices heard.

Third, although Biden is in no way a “moderate” or centrist Democrat, he nonetheless is being portrayed that way because of the contrast between him and self-avowed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, and this helps Biden politically.

Most voters are not liberals, leftists or socialists; and centrist or independent voters are the ones up for grabs, politically.

Indeed, these are the voters Biden needs to win to unseat Trump; and, by being described incessantly in the media as a “moderate” or centrist, Biden already has a built-in advantage with these voters.

Trump will try to disabuse moderate or centrist voters of this misperception by pointing to Biden’s long and very liberal record as a senator, and his current left-wing views as a 2020 presidential candidate; but after months of conditioning by the media, that may prove to be a long, uphill slog.

Fourth, Biden’s age is a real and worrisome problem for the Democrats. This is obvious to anyone with eyes to see, and to any honest political observer. Biden often misspeaks, flubs his words, and rambles incoherently in ways that suggest senility or dementia.

Biden also is prone to sudden bouts of intense energy and apparent anger followed by rambling incoherence.

This is not surprising given his advanced age. Should he win the election, after all, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration day. He would be the oldest person ever elected president and the oldest serving president in our nation’s history.

The question is whether Biden can hold it together and avoid a major faux pas between now and Nov. 3, 2020, without giving voters real reason to think that he simply isn’t up to the job.

At the very least, there will be much greater weight and scrutiny given to Biden’s vice presidential pick, since may voters will correctly perceive that there is a strong likelihood that person will become president within the next four years.

Fifth, Trump needs a second-term agenda, especially if the economy slows or goes into a recession because of the twin shocks of the coronavirus and Saudi-Russian oil war.

Trump has had many praiseworthy achievements as president: corporate tax reform, record low unemployment, a strong and robust economy, two superb Supreme Court appointments, a phase one trade deal with China, and a concerted effort, against incredible partisan odds, to enforce the rule of law at the nation’s southern border.

Elections, though, are about the future, and voters will want to know what Trump plans to do in a second term. Unfortunately, Trump has said little about this and has offered up no new agenda. That will have to change if he intends to serve four more years.

The bottom line: Biden looks very strong coming out of this primary contest and has some real political advantages over Trump. His age and political record, though, are real liabilities; and Trump and the Republicans have yet to really go after him.

Moreover, a lot certainly can and will happen, politically, between now and election day. Who, after all, would have predicted the coronavirus? And these future happenings and events will affect the trajectory of the race and whom the nation chooses as its next president. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: The New Yorker.

Schumer’s Sham Non-Apology Makes It Imperative That the Senate Censure Him

Schumer’s Sham Non-Apology Makes It Imperative That the Senate Censure Him

By John R Guardiano on March 9, 2020

As we reported Saturday, March 7, the failure and unwillingness of institutions—churches, schools, corporations, professional societies, et al.—to maintain standards of professional conduct, and to police and disciplined their own, is a big reason institutions increasingly have lost the public’s trust and confidence, and, with that, their ability to mold the American character and shape the nation’s destiny.

Yuval Levin makes this point brilliantly in a new and important book: A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream.

The Congress of the United States, unfortunately, is not immune from this problem. Witness the fact that Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has threatened two Supreme Court justices.

For this reason, we have called upon the Senate to censure Schumer. This would be the right thing to do; and it would help to restore public trust and confidence in Congress as an institution.

Schumer’s apologists, however, say that censure is unnecessary because Schumer has apologized. In truth, though, the senator has issued a sham non-apology in which he doesn’t really own up to his condemnable offense; and this makes censure all the more imperative. Consider:

Abortion. First, after Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) rebuked Schumer, Schumer began his “apology” by castigating McConnell for a “glaring omission.” McConnell’s offense? He failed to mention that Schumer’s threats were issued within the context of a political rally motivated by an abortion rights case now pending before the Supreme Court.

But this is utterly irrelevant. Threats against Supreme Court justices do not become more legitimate or acceptable if they involve certain types of favored cases. Threats against Supreme Court justices are always and everywhere wrong. So-called context here is a diversion that Schumer is using to try and evade responsibility for his obviously egregious misconduct.

Louisiana Law. Second, Schumer falsely suggests that Court is on the verge of outlawing a so-called woman’s right to choose an abortion; and that this is accounts for his “anger” and “passion.” But this is hyperbolic nonsense.

In truth, what is at issue before the Court now is not the underlying right to abortion; but rather, whether doctors who perform abortions should be required to have hospital admitting privileges.

The state of Louisiana passed a law making this a requirement for doctors who perform abortion. The Court must decide whether this is an “undue burden” on the right to terminate a pregnancy. But even if the court found that the Louisiana law is Constitutional, abortion will remain a Constitutional right.

And what if the Court found that abortion is no longer a Constitutional right. Does that mean abortion will be ipso facto outlawed? No, as Sen. Schumer well knows.

Instead, it means that abortion policy will be decided by Congress, if it so chooses, and/or (more likely) the 50 state legislatures. Some states, such as California and New York will allow abortion at virtually any stage of a pregnancy, while other states, such as Louisiana and Alabama, will have more restrictive laws governing abortion.

In any case, the policy implications of the Court’s jurisprudence are again, utterly irrelevant. Threatening Supreme Court justices is plainly, simply, and obviously wrong. There are no exceptions to this rule because a senator feels strongly or passionately about a particular case or issue pending before the the Court.

Schumer’s huffing and puffing about abortion is a political diversion designed to try and legitimize his threats and thereby enable him to evade responsibility for his wrongdoing.

Political Diversion. Third, Schumer claimed that he wasn’t threatening violence, but instead was warning of the “political consequences” that would result were the Court to undermine abortion rights. Anyone suggesting otherwise is guilty of “a gross distortion,” he asserts. But as George Conway III observes in the Washington Post, “Schumer’s words

were unmistakably intimidating: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch.” “I want to tell you, Kavanaugh.” “You will pay the price.” “You won’t know what hit you if …” The emphasis is mine, but the meaning is clear: If you don’t do as we say, something bad will happen to you.

Those were threats, pure and simple. Although Schumer’s office was right that Schumer also spoke of a political backlash at the ballot box, that hardly leavens the threatening words Schumer directed toward Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

They have life tenure. Just as the Constitution’s drafters intended, elections can’t punish them. So what “price” would they “pay”? What exactly will “hit” them?

Moreover, while Schumer may have meant only that the Justices will suffer “political consequences,” some of his more deranged supporters may legitimately think otherwise, given the inherently threatening nature of his rhetoric.

Again, it was only three years ago that a Bernie Sanders supporter with a manifest hatred for Republicans nearly gunned down the entire House Republican leadership and some two dozen GOP congressmen. Schumer needs to be mindful of the effects his rhetoric might have on the lunatic left.

Chief Justice Roberts. Fourth, after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, rightly rebuked Schumer for his threats, Schumer’s spokesman attacked Roberts for “remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.”

But even if Roberts had done what Schumer’s spokesman said he did—give Trump a pass—two wrongs don’t make a right.

As it turns out, though, Trump never threatened Justices Sotomayor or Ginsburg. Instead, Trump recently said that these two justices should recuse themselves in all “Trump matters” because of their alleged bias against him.

Trump’s remarks may have been, as Conway argues “dumb, baseless, and contemptuous of the rule of law; but they weren’t threatening.”

Indeed, since Trump could theoretically make a motion to recuse, and thus present the issue to the individual justices, it would have been inappropriate for Roberts to respond. And given how Trump didn’t and won’t back up his words with such a motion, his remarks didn’t deserve a response.

Beyond this, Roberts has spoken out against Trump’s demeaning of the judiciary.

In November 2018, after Trump criticized an “Obama judge” who had ruled against Trump’s administration, Roberts responded that there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” but, instead, “an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

(Trump, of course, immediately hit back.)

But judges, let alone the chief justice, shouldn’t have to verbally spar with politicians. It undermines the judiciary for judges to have to do that, or even to consider whether they have to.

Schumer’s concerted attempt to rationalize his threats and evade responsibility for his misconduct make it all the more imperative that Congress intervene and formally censure him.

Again, this is about institutional honor and integrity, and restoring public trust and confidence in Congress as an institution. The time to act is now.

Feature photo credit: Reuters/Leah Millis via National Review.

The Senate Should Censure Senator Schumer for Threatening Two Supreme Court Justices

The Senate Should Censure Senator Schumer for Threatening Two Supreme Court Justices

By John R Guardiano on March 7, 2020

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) has introduced a resolution calling on the Senate to censure Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) for threatening two Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The resolution has 14 Republican cosponsors, but won’t ever pass the Senate, even though the Republicans have a majority there.

The reason: too many Republican senators, such as Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), are opposed to the move because they fear it would ignite a tit for tat by Democrats, who then would demand that the Senate censure President Trump.

Graham’s concern is legitimate and understandable, but he’s wrong. Whatever the merits of the case for censuring Trump because of his misconduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, the stark reality is that what Sen. Schumer did is clearly and obviously wrong and deserves to be censured.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics, or at least is should not be a matter of partisan politics. Instead, this is matter of institutional integrity and ensuring that standards of conduct and behavior are maintained and enforced.

For any institution, but Congress especially, this matters. Public trust and confidence can only be maintained if institutions police themselves and discipline their own.

Institutional Integrity. In fact, one big reason the public holds Congress in low regard is that, as Yuval Levin explains in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR), it doesn’t see Congress maintaining or promoting an institutional ethic that shapes its members in a reliable and responsible way.

Levin has written a new and important book, A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream. And while his aforementioned comment to NPR wasn’t directed at Congress or Schumer in particular, it nonetheless applies here.

How can the public trust Congress if the institution doesn’t stand for anything more than the will of the majority? And how can public confidence be maintained if standards of propriety, decency and respect are routinely flouted to secure rank partisan gain?

As Levin succinctly puts its: “We trust an institution when we think that it forms the people within it to be trustworthy.”

Rule of Law. Moreover, as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy points out, censure is necessary to bolster the rule of law.

Schumer, after all, issued his threats on the steps of the Supreme Court while playing to a mob trying that was trying to shape or influence a Court decision that should be immune or indifferent to political considerations.

What should guide the Court’s decision, exclusively, as McCarthy observes, is the rule of law and applying the law dispassionately, without fear, favor or prejudice, to the particular case at hand. Yet, Schumer used political intimidation tactics and threats explicitly to undermine the Court and the rule of law.

“That should rate censure,” McCarthy argues. “Case closed.” He’s right.

Censure, as the Senate explains on its website, is

less severe than expulsion [and] sometimes referred to as [a] condemnation or denouncement. [It] does not remove a senator from office.

It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate.

In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.

Censure. It is long past time for the Senate to censure its tenth member, Charles E. Schumer—not as a form of partisan warfare or political retribution, but rather as a statement of institutional honor and integrity.

No American, and certainly no member of the United States Senate, the world’s greatest deliberative body, should ever threaten a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Surely, all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree that this is unacceptable and beyond the pale.

Let the Senate, then, demonstrate to all Americans and to the world that it expects and demands better. It expects and demands of itself and its members professional conduct, respect for the Constitutionally prescribed powers and authority of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, and civil discourse, dialogue and debate.

As it concerns Sen. Schumer, the way to demonstrate this commitment is through the power of the censure, which should rarely be used, but also not disused. Indeed, there are times when the censure is needed and necessary, and now is one of those times.

Feature photo credit: News Metropolis.

Schumer’s Attack on the Supreme Court Is the Democrats’ Latest Attempt to Intimidate and Politicize the Judiciary

Schumer’s Attack on the Supreme Court Is the Democrats’ Latest Attempt to Intimidate and Politicize the Judiciary

By John R Guardiano on March 6, 2020

Most independent observers, left and right, have rightly lambasted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) for literally threatening two Supreme Court justices if they do not rule in favor of abortion rights in a case now pending before the Court.

What no one seems to have noticed, though, is that Schumer’s threat is part and parcel of the Democratic Party’s dangerous and decades-long politicization of the judiciary, and its ongoing attempt to subvert the courts to serve blatantly political ends.

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates, for instance, supported a court-packing scheme to ensure that the Supreme Court rules in a “progressive” way which ensures politically correct or desirable results.

Pete Buttigieg, for example, proposed expanding the number of justices on the court from nine to 15 through a selection process ostensibly designed to depoliticize the Court, but which, in reality, is itself highly politicized.

Joe Biden, who will be the Democratic presidential nominee, says he’s opposed to a Court-packing scheme. Yet, he nonetheless pledges to subject his Court appointments to a political litmus test in which would-be justices must affirm their commitment to Roe-v.-Wade, abortion rights, and other left-wing, “progressive” political goals.

Politicization. This is, sadly, unsurprising. The attempt to politicize the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, has reached a fever pitch on the left, with well-funded left-wing groups making this a high priority.

The left’s attack on the independence and integrity of the judiciary is also dangerous. This “is something we recognize as a banana-republic tactic when we see it in other countries,” writes National Review’s Dan McLaughlin. “Court-packing,” he notes,

is a Rubicon we should dread to cross. It last appeared on the national agenda in 1937, the high-water mark of one-party federal government at home and ideological authoritarianism around the globe.

Even then, it was roundly rejected by the American body politic. In one swoop, it would irreparably destroy the American tradition of judicial independence of the political branches.

In short order, this would end the American experiment of the rule of law and a government of separated and limited powers.

But Democrats and the left care little for what they clearly consider to be Constitutional niceties. What matters to them are results.

And, if they cannot achieve their desired political ends through the legislative branch of government, as the Constitution prescribes, then they will seek redress in the judiciary and the courts.

This has been happening for decades, as Democrats and the left have short-circuited the democratic process to achieve political results in the courts that they never could have achieved—or would have achieved more slowly and incrementally—in Congress and the state legislatures.

However, the left’s grip on the judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, is threatened now with the appointments of a new generation of originalist justices and judges who have a more modest and limited view of the judiciary’s role in American political life.

Indeed, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, famously put it in his 2005 Congressional confirmation hearing:

Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role.

Democrats and the left, though, don’t view the Court’s role as limited; they view it as supreme, at least if it is pursuing a left-wing political agenda. Consequently, they are positively apoplectic that they are losing their grip on the judiciary.

That’s why they went to war over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, deploying mob intimidation tactics that we more often see in a banana-republic, not a mature and modern democracy.

Justice Kavanaugh, of course, and his colleague Justice Gorsuch, are the Court’s newest members; they were appointed by President Trump; and they have yet to fully rule on a host of matters, including but not limited to, abortion.

Sen. Schumer is not a stupid man. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and he boasts of achieving a perfect score on his SATs. He knew exactly what he was doing: He was laying down a marker for these new justices, and letting them know that they had better rule in politically correct fashion—or else.

Schumer has since apologized, but the damage to the rule of law and the integrity of our political and legal institutions already has been done. Democrats and the left have put the justices, and the judiciary more generally, on notice:

If you do not hew to the “progressive” political agenda, “you will pay the price,” as Schumer put it. “You won’t know what hit you,” and you will reap “the whirlwind.” This is frightening talk, made all the more dangerous because of the mob intimidation tactics sanctioned and encouraged by Democrats and the left.

And what makes these remarks all the more frightening is the spate of mass shootings in recent years by deranged individuals with political axes to grind.

It was only three years ago, after all, that a nut with a manifest hatred for Republicans almost wiped out the entire House Republican leadership and some two dozen GOP congressmen.

Unsurprising. Unfortunately, we should not be surprised by Schumer’s dangerous attempt to cow and intimidate the Supreme Court’s newest justices.

Democrats and the left have long made it their life’s political work to capture the judiciary and to use the courts for blatantly political purposes. And, to a disconcerting extent, they have been successful.

But with Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the Court, that project is now threatened, and Democrats and the left are lashing out. Indeed, Schumer’s condemnable outburst wasn’t their first such attack and, sadly, it won’t be their last.

Feature photo credit: News Thud.